The timespan between the post-colonial era and the early 20th century was marked by a specific rise in the urban culture (‘city life’) in America and there were some uniquely identifying characteristics of this emergence of the city life. This essay aims at exploring the various identifying aspects of the American cities that separated them from the rest of the country and conditions that led to a widening social stratification between the lifestyles of the rich and the poor in these cities. In order to understand the various unique characteristics of the American urban life during the chosen era, it is very crucial to explore the specific conditions that led to the development of such facets of the Urban life. The development of Philadelphia, Boston, and New York as the provincial capitals began at the end of the colonial rule at the beginning of the 19th century marked these places to serve as the ports for European entrance into the American land. The era was marked by a planned rise of the rural and urban areas for the nation but the cities became the hub of major American civilization due to the dominance of journalism, printing press, applied sciences, and educational services (Schlesinger 47). President Franklin’s model of holistic civilization for the country was overridden by the growing urban lifestyle which was marked by the development of art and architecture, theatre, and a corresponding rise in the wealth and leisure of the urban people. The newly formed constitution was also inclined towards developing specific tariff protection laws for the main cities like Philadelphia, Boston, New York , and Baltimore which was followed by a rise in urban capitalism. Thus, right from the very beginning of the urban life, there were specific political and commercial reasons that separated the cities from the rest of the nation.
In terms of the social life, the other differentiating aspects of the urban people with respect to the rural inhabitants were based on the unique cultural life, occupational values, personality traits, and community-oriented development models (Wirth 109). Since the capitalist form of urban structure led to an uneven economic growth of the society, there were some stern social gaps that resulted in the creation of potential differentiation between the urban dwellers when compared to the harmonic structure of the rural life in the country. Along with the rising commercial development due to better access to commercial models of development like transport and better technology, the urban society developed a widely varying range of the development for various cadres of the society. The city life had spatial segregation on the basis of racial differences, ethnicity, economic status and these differences originated because of not following the notions of living together as a common folk, which was a traditional form of the social model in the countryside (Wirth 110). The highly occupying and rapid moving lifestyle of the cities led to the social segregation of the people because they were less interactive and more centered on their personal endeavours. Thus, the city life was socially discriminated from the rural life as the social dwellers more superficially connected to each other and had more anonymity and transitory values in their life as city-dwellers when compared to their rural counterparts (Worth 111).
Another significant aspect (and the aftereffect) of the differentiated lifestyle of the cities was the rising social stratification in terms of rising contrasts between the lifestyles of the rich and the poor. The country people had very little distinction between the social association of the economically sound and the weak sections and they had a good realization of each other’s lifestyles which was extremely opposite to that of Cities where the rich and the poor existed like two different worlds (Still 155). The prime difference was in the economic access to the distinguishing features of the urban life that were extremely classified for those who had wealth and better economic status. Cities like New York had highly biased socio-economic models of development where the rich were endowed with all forms of leisures and comforts aided by the latest technology and service facilities(Still 155). The era was marked by the distinguished form of highly privileged living standards for the rich class in the cities. The mid 19th century was marked by a steady rise in very costly clubs that were meant to be availed by the elites and the development of large mansions with costly interiors and lavish designs (Still 157). There were planned developments in the agricultural growth of cities like Philadelphia and the rise of apartments came into full force in cities like Philadelphia. The development of railroads made it easy for the city dwellers to access the country for their business pursuits and this led to a corresponding rise in the economic status of the rural locations and suburbs located to the cities like New York (Mumford 82).
On the other hand, the poor in the cities like New York were not furnished with even the basic amenities of food, shelter, and clothing. The social system was not focussed on providing any specific opportunity for their development and it rather ignored them considering them the dark spots on the shining city life. By 1868 , the New York city was evident of almost 10,000 children who were abandoned, orphaned, and runaway kids and were reckless roaming on the streets, this striking decline of the social condition led to the development of the foster care homes for these children (Still 164). In cities like New York, the rising inequalities between the rich and poor were also due to the complete evasion of the impoverished section in planning the socio-economic growth of the society which was more inclined towards the development of pavements, lighting systems, sewers, clubs, and tall mansions, rather than shelters and fosters homes for the poor (Mumford 81).
Hence, it can be concluded that the differentiated pattern of the city life made it impervious to a social disconnect among the peoples of the society that prevented them from indulging into each other’s lives. The rapid growth of the commercial development model for the American cities like New York and Philadelphia resulted in the rise of a capitalist form of the society that favoured the rise if the rich people and the completely evaded the miseries of the poor. Further, the focus of the urban development models was more on the social externalities and beautification elements like art, architecture, mansions, street lighting, etc. (“The City (1939) Part-I”, 9:04:10:21- 9:04:38:12) and they were not bothered about creating a development plan for providing the basic amenities to the poor which further worsened their status. Also, the development of railroads and other modes of technological advancements improved the access and commercial connectivity of the city-dwellers with the country but they could not adopt the well-bonded form of social life prevalent in the rural societies. Thus, the above-stated unique features of the urban life development led to not only creating a distinguished identity from the rest of the country for the American cities but they also created huge social inequalities between the different sections of the society, resulting in widening social stratification.
Works Cited
American Documentary Films, Inc. "City, The (Part I) ". Online documentary clip. Weeks 1#2: Assignment #1 Page. , 1939. Web. 29 May, 2016.
Lewis, Mumford. "The city". Civilization in the United States: An enquiry by Thirty Americans, Vol. 1,1922. 3-20.Print.
Schlesinger, M. Arthur. "The city in American History". The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 27, No. 1,1938. 1-24.Print.
Still, Bayrd. " Urban America. A history with documents". New York University. First edition: Little Brown and Company limited, 1974. 138-165. Print.
Wirth, Louis. " Urbanism as a way of life". The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44, No.1, 1938,109-134.
